Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Pellumb Xhufi

Pellumb Xhufi

Filed by Alexikoua on 01:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC).

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute
Articles about Greek-Albanian history and demographics, in particular the use of works by the specific author (so far) in:

• Anti-Ottoman revolts of 1565–1572
• Himara Revolt of 1596
• Epirus revolt of 1611
• Albanians in Greece
• Petros Lantzas
• Parga
• Margariti
• Delvinë

Users involved

• Alexikoua (talk · contribs)
• Çerçok (talk · contribs)
• Alltan (talk · contribs)
• Ktrimi991 (talk · contribs)
• Khirurg (talk · contribs)
• ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ (talk · contribs)
• SilentResident (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

There have been a lot of problems in Greek-Albanian history topics regarding the use of Albanian politician and historian Pellumb Xhufi as reference. While ostensibly an academic, he has been repeatedly criticized for "aggressive nationalistic tone", "nationally one-sided scientific articles", "nationalist polemics", by various scholars. Controversial would be anything that is typically controversial (e.g. ethnicity, demographics), especially in relation to other available sources.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

• Talk:Petros_Lantzas#Alternative_views
• Talk:Anti-Ottoman_revolts_of_1565–1572)
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Pellumb_Xhufi

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

At a recently RSN case filled by user:Khirurg Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Pellumb_Xhufi the issue was proposed to be brought here in order to be assessed by uninvolved third-parties. The main question here is if an author that is widely involved in nationalist narrative both in his works but also in local news and TV shows can be used as wp:RS in wikipedia.

Summary of dispute by Alexikoua

In this case serious issues arise regarding the use of works by Xhufi that are published by publishers of unknown reliability and journals for which the level of peer-review is unclear. Their use remains problematic - and certainly non- wp:RS- because of the following:

1. Negative reviews in collective academic works about the quality of Balkan-related historiography:

• [[1]] by O.J. Schmitt of the Austrian Academy of Science (by the way a non-Balkan himself) (p. 726):

quote

institutionalized Albanian research on the Epirus question has a defensive (Beqir Meta), but often aggressive-nationalistic tone (Pëllumb Xhufi), which in both cases hardly shows any signs of self-reflection. Close connections between science and politics, which are particularly evident in the person of Xhufi, hardly contribute to an objectification of the discussion. ... In recent years, Xhufi has specialized in anti-Greek or anti-Orthodox rhetoric ...Xhufi also published rich material, but unfortunately nationally one-sided scientific essays

• [[2]], by historian Konstantinos Giakoumis:

quote
p. 144: "The dominance of ethnocentric, monoscopic and rather localistic interpretative apparatusis apparently not a trait of some Albanian historiographical works (cf. Xhufi 2009;

2. Negative critiques on Xhufi's methodology and interpretation of primary material

• by historian K. Giakoumis: ([[3]])

quote
p. 173: According to the Albanian historian Pellumb Xhufi, who misinterpreted Ottoman registers and a Greek chronicle, Dropull was colonized by Greeks not earlier than the beginning of the seventeenth century.

• by linguist D. Kyriazis [[4]] (translation here: [[5]]):

quote
Xhufi 2016 (Arbërit e Jonit) in order to prove that the Greek-speaking pockets in south Albania are due to relatively recent settlements of populations that came from parts of present-day Greece, linguistic data are systematically bypassed or selectively used,

• O.J. Schmitt: [[6]], translation here: [[7]],

quote
"Xhufi's , Dilemat e Arberit, 2006, offers partly nationalistic polemics against Greek historiography".

• Another detailed critique by D. Kyriazis [8] (in Albanian).

• Xhufi has also been criticized by Albanian scholars for falsifying primary sources [9].

3. Non-neutral narrative in newspapers and tv shows

• A particularly troubling editorial by Xhufi in a Kosovo newspaper [10]; claims about conspiracies, demographic purity, Greeks in Albania are paid agents of the Greek government, etc. It is certainly not the narrative of a neutral historical but the typical narrative for internal national consumption. Similar deceleration also here [[11]].

• Launched polemics against inclusion of the ethnicity question in the 2011 Albanian census claiming that it will "turn Albania into another Lebanon" [12], that doing so was selling out to Greek interests, and claimed on live tv that Greek foreign minister Nikos Dendias is a "secret Albanian", because his last name bears a similarity with an Albanian word [13].

• Xhufi publicly calling for the expulsion of local religious leader, Anastasios of the Orthodox Church, because he is not part of the national project: [[14]] (p. 725) & [[15]]

• At the presentation of his book "Arbërit e Joni" (here [[16]] (which has created hot debates in various discussions in wiki) the usual polemics are also dominant, declaring that:

quotes
“Greeks are manipulating history” & history should be “re-written again from scratch”, “everything down to Preveza is part of the Albanian habitat since the medieval age.”

• Xhufi's statements about communist-era concentration camps in Albania received also negative critiques:

quotes
[[17]] Pellumb Xhufi has angered scholars and the descendant of survivors of an infamous labour camp by claiming the conditions there were ‘not bad’.

His historical narrative differs only slightly from that of the authoritarian (pre-1991) regime of the P.R. of Albania: [[18]] (p. 65). Also modern Albanian officials do not hesitate to accuse him of taking the post of history professor during the People's Republic era: [[19]].

Xhufi is an active politician, former deputy minister in his country who frequently appears on local tv shows and displays nationalist rhetoric. Scholarship and news have heavily criticized his research. From my experience in wikipedia there were several less partisan cases of authors that were dismissed for not meeting wp:RS.Alexikoua (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Çerçok

Dr. Xhufi's works are RS. The only issue with the reliability of Dr. Xhufi is that some editors disagree with the verifiable truths that he has uncovered. I will try to be brief but I am constrained by the length of the initial post.

• 1. Important notes

First, I would like to note that this is the fourth time that the same editors (Khirurg and Alexikoua, see [20], [21], [22]) try to ban him and at some point these attempts should simply stop. Second, Alexikoua conveniently tagged only a few editors here, so I am tagging all the editors that were involved in discussions regarding content from Xhufi: @AlexBachmann:,@Coldtrack:,@Uniacademic:,@Demetrios1993:,@FierakuiVërtet:,@Lezhjani1444:,@Durraz0:,@Super Dromaeosaurus:,@Truthseeker2006:,@Βατο:,@Ahmet Q.:,@Maleschreiber:,@Drmies:. Third, I believe the reliability of journals/books/newspapers may be evaluated, not that of an author itself, therefore this whole thread should not be here.

• 2. Dr. Xhufi's reliability

Nonetheless, if an author's reliability can be discussed, here are some of Dr.Xhufi's academic credentials:

- He is an Medievalist, member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania.

- He has authored dozens of academic peer-reviewed publications (books and book chapters, articles, monographs): [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], etc.

- His work has been widely cited in top quality academic sources (a few of countless examples: [31], [32], [33], etc.)

- The works of Dr. Xhufi that have been cited on Wikipedia are all academic publications such as the ones listed above, all peer-reviewed and cited by other authors.

- I believe the discussion of reliability should be aimed at improving Wikipedia, but this threat fails to mention a single instance of how content from Dr.Xhufi's work has been harmful so far. Not a single one of my citations of Dr.Xhufi's work has until now been opposed by a conflicting citation from another author, or been found to be falsified or manipulated in any way.

• 3. Response to some accusations

It is unfortunate that Alexikoua's summary does not discuss any Wikipedia content that has been added from Xhufi. Such accusations, especially ones about TV appearances and his political views, remain irrelevant, but they still need to be answered.

- Disputes between historians are common, especially ones specializing on the Balkans. Schmidt and Xhufi have a long history of disagreement, but they both co-authored the same book: [34]. There is no reason to consider one reliable and the other not. Furthermore, I can easily find Albanian historians' critiques of their Greek colleagues similar to the ones Alexikoua provided from Giakoumis and Kyriazis in regards to Xhufi (neither of them more academically noteworthy than Xhufi himself).

- The accusation about the Tepelena camps is merely an out-of-context quote, already been amply clarified here:[35].

- The accusation that Dr.Xhufi's concluded Dendias' Albanian origin based on word similarity is untrue. It was Dr. Milo who noted it the year before [36], and earlier the Greek minority in Albania claimed he descends from this group: [37]. So Dr. Xhufi did not make it up.

- It is irrelevant to Dr. Xhufi's reliability, but Alexikoua insists on falsely claiming he is an active politician despite having been informed (here:[38]) he is not.

- The content I have added from Xhufi's works have always been from parts where he refers to primary material. Despite this, Khirurg, Alexikoua and 1-2 others have regularly objected such additions with accusations that have repeatedly been proven wrong. Two examples: Khirurg claimed [39] his citation of primary material is not reliable based on critiques from journalists (who he falsely claimed were historians), but it turned out that Xhufi's references to primary material had been also cited in the exact same way by British historian Noel Malcolm (see: [40]. SilentResident claimed Xhufi's book is not peer reviewed [41], however it was [42] and one of its chapters was even published in the University of Toulouse [43].

Summary of dispute by Alltan

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Thing is that, we can't cherry-pick random quotes from someone who has even written an article in the same anthology as Xhufi (who btw hasn't been "rejected" anywhere). Xhufi is a medievalist, a member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania. Arbërit e Jonit was published by Onufri, a leading academic publishing house which has received many excellence awards, even being positively reviewed in a historical journal by medievalist Ardian Muhaj[44]. It checks all the boxes for RS. We can't just cherry-pick one opinion to disregard someone's work. Xhufi's book Arbërit e Jonit has even received excellent reviews in general and it is even listed as a main source for a Cambridge University Press source as of 2022 [45]. It is nonsensical that a source which can pass Cambridge peer review can't pass WP:RS for some anonymous Wikipedia users.Alltan (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Ktrimi991

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

• @Robert McClenon: I have never been in any content dispute on Xhufi. Other editors, who have been and have supported Xhufi's usage, for some reason have not been notified about this discussion by Alexikoua. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by Khirurg

I agree with Alexikoua that this is a pressing issue that needs to be resolved. I also agree with him regarding the criticisms of Xhufi. I do not think he should be used to source anything controversial. Khirurg (talk) 02:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The main reason Xhufi is not reliable is that he has been accused of falsifying and mistranslating primary documents by various scholars. This is a very serious charge and directly calls into question his reliability. He has also been criticized for nationalism by several scholars, among other things being described as "virulently anti-Greek". Also many publications in questionable publishers. Taken together, these point to someone who should only be used with great caution as a source. Khirurg (talk) 04:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ

It is patently clear that the insertion of Xhufi into a growing list of Balkan-related articles is part of a concerted POV push, and therefore a constant source of friction. The project would benefit greatly if editors simply restricted themselves to reliable sources, preferably those published in English, and refrained from inflaming tensions by citing activist authors like Xhufi, who is controversial for all the reasons outlined by Alexikoua above. ΘΕΟΔΩΡΟΣ (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Summary of dispute by SilentResident

Pellumb Xhufi has to be addressed for his reliability because he is being cited in a growing number of articles, without wp:consensus. I would like to point out that the English Wikipedia already has a content guideline explaining when a source may be considered as wp:unreliable: Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.. Since Xhufi is known for having a poor reputation for fact-checking, for historical revisionism (see wp:pseudoscience), and is also known for espousing extremist views. IMO, Wikipedia ought to bar citing him in the following cases: 1) when a topic area is sensitive and related to these ethnicities that were subject to Xhufi's extremist views, and, 2) when no third-party sources could wp:verify Xhufi's claims, 3) when there is no wp:consensus for using him. Currently, all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have been violated, and Xhufi is remaining on all of these aforementioned articles despite wp:consensus policy stating that: In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.. I am hopeful the DRN can help resolve the dispute around Xhufi's reliability, because the RSN didn't help. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:19, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Zeroth Statement by Moderator on Pellumb Xhufi

I am willing to try to conduct moderated discussion. This will be somewhat different from other matters that I have moderated, so the rules and procedures will be somewhat different. I have two questions for the editors, both for those who have responded to the notice and for any other editors. First, do the editors agree that there is an issue about the reliability of Pellumb Xhufi? Second, are there any other issues? Answer the questions in the space below. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your answers to me as the representative of the community. Be civil and concise. If there is agreement, I will then create a subpage for this discussion and provide a set of rules for the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

First Statement by Moderator

I am providing a subpage for this discussion. It is at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Pellumb Xhufi . All further discussion should be conducted there.

It is my understanding that the question is whether and when the writings of Pellumb Xhufi are considered a reliable source. Please read the policy on reliable sources again. Please also read the rules. Editors are responsible for compliance with the rule.

First Statements by Editors

• Yes, I am familiarized with WP:RS. And I have read WP:RSDR --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
• I'm familiar with the the policies including RS, RSDR, POV.Alexikoua (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• I am familiar with the above policies. Khirurg (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
• I am unsure why I was informed of this, as all I recall doing was saying an RFC was flawed. But yes I am familiar with our policies (hence why I said the RFC was flawed). Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Second statement by moderator

It appears that I left out part of what I intended to be my first statement. I requested that each editor make a one-paragraph statement as to what the source reliability issues are. Please make a one-paragraph statement as to what the source reliability issues are. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Second statements by editors

The source reliability issues are summarized as:

• Author resorted to source falsification, poor methodology and misinterpretation of primary material.
• Author conducted aggressive nationalist one-sided scientific essays. Note that while bias in sources is allowed in Wikipedia, extremism in sources makes them questionable.
• Author has openly supported conspiracy theories and promoted hatred against other nationalities and other religions.
• Author openly encourages the historical revisionism and fringe theories and wants the whole history to be rewritten from scratch.

Some of these issues seem interchangeable with each other and may not be grouped accurately here, but it is hard to ever sort the problems as consistently and reasonably, and this denotes how problematic is to rely on the specific author as a reliable source in the first place when multiple aspects of his scholarship are questioned. We can't be certain for sure if the filters of peer viewing has dealt with all the aforementioned core problems that characterize the scholar's work as whole and are interchangeable. The heavy criticism on Xhufi's reliability is too wide and concerns all aspects of his scholarship for Wikipedia to fall as low as to simply ignore the problem(s). --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 14:55, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Third Statement by Moderator on Xhufi

I think that at least two issues have been identified, one of which is a content issue, and one of which is a conduct issue. We are only discussing the content issue here. The content issue is the reliability as a source of Pellumb Xhufi. The conduct issue is allegations of tag-team editing to insert material that is sourced to Xhufi. The reliability of sources is an article content issue, because it involves what content may be included in articles in the encyclopedia. Disruptive editing to promote a point of view is a conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that my objective is to compose a neutrally worded RFC asking the community about the reliability as a source of Pellumb Xhufi. Is Xhufi considered:

• a reliable academic source;
• a biased but reliable academic source who may be used, noting the bias.
• a fringe source who is considered fringe by most of the academic community;
• a deprecated source?

Before we can complete this source assessment, we need to have as many editors participating as possible.

At this time I will try to get all of the involved editors onto one talk page (this page) before asking questions that will require a response within 48 hours. All editors are asked to acknowledge, in the space for statements, that they are here, and are ready to take part in discussion. They may optionally make a one-paragraph statement of what they see as an issue or the issues. Because I am trying to get a large number of editors gathered in one place, overly long statements will be collapsed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Fourth Statement by Moderator

Now I would like each editor to make a one-paragraph statement as to their opinion as to the reliability of Pellumb Xhufi. Should Xhufi be considered:

• a reliable academic source;
• a biased but reliable academic source who may be used, noting the bias.
• a fringe source who is considered fringe by most of the academic community;
• a deprecated source?

If anyone has any questions, they may ask them in addition to answering the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Fourth Statements by Editors

• Xhufi's should be considered a reliable academic source, as his work is peer-reviewed, published in academic sources, is widely cited and overall meets Wikipedia guidelines' criteria for reliability. Interviews and political activity is irrelevant here as it is not being cited; his academic publications are reliable. I would like to ask the editors who question Xhufi's reliability to present at least one single case when citations of his academic work on Wikipedia have been found inaccurate or in any other way harmful for the reliability of this encyclopedia. Çerçok (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• I disagree with the recommendation that any academic sources questioning the author's credibility are ignored, and that any editorial concerns about him are dismissed. Asking from us that we should pretend as if there is no whatsoever problem about Xhufi's reliability, or that no academic scholars ever questioned his work and fact-checking capabilities, or that their criticism on Xhufi is unsufficient, and/or that no editors have ever expressed any concerns about Xhufi's extremist views specific certain ethnic groups. All these go against the principle of Wikipedia's guidelines in my humble opinion. If the DRN seeks to resolve the dispute by respecting everybody's concerns and sensitivities in line with WP:NPOV, WP:RS and WP:VERIFY policies, then, is it too much to ask that Xhufi is deprecated for the politically sensitive articles at least? At least for the topic areas related to the ethnic groups and nations against which Xhufi has expressed problematic positions or any historical topic areas for which there are concerns of a historical revisionism? Since those supporting Xhufi insist that he is reliable, then sure, they may cite him in the rest of the articles, provided that the new additions are welcomed without objections by other editors. In this case, the guidelines still are as relevant: the WP:ONUS to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

• Bias is not a valid reason for exclusion (though it maybe for a claim it needs to be attributed). We would need to see that he actually has no reputation for fact checking. Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• I concur with SilentResident. While bias is one thing, and does not necessarily disqualify a source, the issue is that Xhufi's bias is extreme, entering into WP:FRINGE territory. He has also been accused of falsifying and mistranslating sources by other scholars - this is a serious charge and directly calls into question his reliability. There is also the question of his publishers, some of which are of unknown reputation for fact checking and accuracy. I would thus rate Xhufi as a fringe source at best. Khirurg (talk) 03:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: Reading some comments by the editors who have tried to remove Xhufi as a source would make any reader think that Xhufi is a self-published source with no academic credentials. Slatersteven asked for Xhufi's credentials. Currently, P. Xhufi, who is a member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania, is the delegate of Albania in the council of the International Union of Academies (The UAI is the global organization of national academies in the fields of the humanities and social sciences. Its aims are to initiate, recognize, foster and fund basic long-term international research projects. Created in 1919 in Paris with a general secretariat established in Brussels, the UAI comprises at the moment more than a hundred academies from 63 countries from all continents.). From his bio in IUA: Prof. Dr. Pëllumb Xhufi is a member of the Academy of Sciences of Albania and the Head of the Section of Social and Albanology Sciences. He is a historian, researcher, ex-diplomat and ex-politician. Prof. Xhufi graduated in Rome, at the university “La Sapience” in 1977. After his return in Albania, he has worked as a scientific researcher in the Institute of History in the Academy of Sciences of Albania. He has a solid professional career, focusing, but not limited, his research activity in the Albanian medieval history. He has systematically published his scientific work in more than 100 scientific articles and several monographs. Through such works, prof. Xhufi has illuminated historical periods in small or not known Albanian regions and has reconstructed the medieval history of the principalities of Southern Albania. P. Xhufi has been affirmed as the most competent Albanian scholar and has been accepted as such in the international field. Scientific seriousness, objectivity and the pursuit of modern methodologies of historical research are his main qualities as the historian of the Albanian Middle Ages. In addition, Prof. Dr. Xhufi speaks fluently Latin language and ancient Greek, Italian, French, German, English and Greek --Maleschreiber (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Fifth Statement by Moderator on Xhufi

This is moderated discussion, which means that the moderator should ask the questions and control the flow. Since the English Wikipedia does not have an article on Xhufi, I will ask that one of the proponents of using him as a source to provide a brief curriculum vitae. What are his degrees? Has he held any academic positions? Has he held any governmental positions?

Also, is there a reason why the English Wikipedia does not have an article on Xhufi, or is this simply a case that no one has done the hard work of writing an article? Should there be an article?

I will ask both his supporters and his detractors whether they consider his non-peer-reviewed writings to be reliable sources. I will also ask whether there are any cases where opposing reliable sources have stated that he has misstated facts, or reported information as fact that was incorrect. If he had been accused, rightly or wrongly, of mistranslating, please provide an example. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Back-and-Forth Discussion

• @Slatersteven:: I agree with your statement that Bias is not a valid reason for exclusion and I am saying the same to others trying to remove biased sources in their disputes. However to my understanding, bias in sources is not to be confused with extremism which is what differentiates Xhufi from the vast majority of biased sources used in Wikipedia and the reason the dispute is ongoing. Just, I don't think that the aggressive nationalism the specific author is espousing, targeting other nations and the foreign ethnicities inhabiting the places his scholarship is focused upon, with the author openly seeking to re-write the history of the region in favor of his own nationality, can be downplayed into a mere matter of academic bias. Wikipedia itself is careful to separate Biased sources from Questionable sources due to extremism. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

• Can we see some of this criticism of him (from RS of course)? Slatersteven (talk) 10:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Please, for the needs of keeping the discussion clean from repeating the statements by editors, the RS you asked can be accessed there: [46] --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Of those only one does not appear to have a horse in the race. And I am unsure that one (or indeed most of the others) say more than he is biased, not that he is factually incorrect. Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

• Is anyone able to present one single instance of content from Xhufi on Wikipedia that has been found inaccurate, false or otherwise refuted by other RS sources? Any instance whatsoever of Xhufi content that has decreased the quality of a Wikipedia article? Çerçok (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Plenty of cases in which Xhufi presents his wp:FRINGE have been already addressed: The supposed claim that ethnic Greek communities are newcomers in southern Albanian has been heavily rejected by the rest of the scholarship. I can name a mountain of instances in which Xhufi's practices are non-scientific (due to falsification of primary material & partial selection of sources).Alexikoua (talk) 20:43, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry but these generalizations don't help. The supposed claim that ethnic Greek communities are newcomers in southern Albanian has been heavily rejected by the rest of the scholarship. You are welcome to quote such a claim from any of his academic works, together with the supposed scholarly rejection. However I can quote parts of his book where he mentions Greek as a minority language in Himara centuries ago. If you are still talking about his interviews, that's irrelevant as no one is quoting them here. Çerçok (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Some pieces of Xhufi's information were added across various Wikipedia articles through edit warring, while remaining completely unverified by any third party RS, and were added to the article without achieving a talk page consensus. In my view, all these 3 issues are detrimental to the article quality, so, yes, it has been decreased. Had for example these articles now been assessed for meeting the quality criteria, they would fail immediately per WP:GAFAIL due to resorting to edit warring for inserting that content, and for the fact that whole paragraphs in it are clinging solely on that author who is criticized by third party sources. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 23:32, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Moderator asks the questions

I asked about content, not the manner in which it was added. I thought that was clear. I repeat, are you or anyone else able to present one single instance of content from Xhufi on Wikipedia that has been found inaccurate, false or otherwise refuted by other RS sources? If yes, please cite the content here so everyone can assess its reliability and value for Wikipedia. If not, then I don't even know what this why this whole dispute started. Çerçok (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I asked about content, not the manner in which it was added. From your comment it is clear there isn't a single instance of content from Xhufi on Wikipedia that has been found inaccurate, false or otherwise refuted by other RS sources. Çerçok (talk) 13:10, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure I can follow here. I'm not sure how exactly my reply to you, just above: "Some pieces of Xhufi's information were [...] remaining completely unverified by any third party RS" is suggesting that "there isn't a single instance of content from Xhufi on Wikipedia that has been found inaccurate, false or otherwise refuted by other RS sources." for you. This sounds like a gaslighting tactic which, -along with the questions you are asking which only the Moderator is supposed to ask- are unhelpful for the Back-And-Forth discussion. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:20, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I am happy to clarify it. Academic publications have to bring new insights, new primary material, new conclusions. No peer-reviewed work (excluding literature reviews) is expected to be 100% verifiable in other authors' works, otherwise it would be worthless. What is expected is for previously published evidence to be accurately presented, and then paired with new evidence. A recent example on Wikipedia:

- A phrase from Xhufi's primary source citation here: [47] reads "and a large number of Albanians". Xhufi was not the first to unveil this document so this was easily verified in Noel Malcolm's book as: "and a large number of Albanians". I can list many similar examples.

- Xhufi did publish, in my knowledge for the first time, another primary document referring to the same event which included the phrase "the Albanian army", also added to the same Wikipedia article. This phrase is found in other authors because it was Xhufi who published the material. This does not mean this phrase has been in any way found inaccurate, false or otherwise refuted by other RS sources, in fact it is a valuable addition to and fully in line with previous evidence.

I can only state once again that content from Xhufi on Wikipedia has never been found inaccurate or contradicted by other RS sources. No article's reliability has ever been jeopardized due to content from him.

And please leave the moderation to the moderator. Thank you. Çerçok (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

"I can only state once again that content from Xhufi on Wikipedia has never been found inaccurate or contradicted by other RS sources." I disagree with you, Çerçok, as do the other editors and scholars too.

The lack of any third-party sources verifying whole bits from his work is not an indicator of reliability, but the opposite, I am afraid.

Considering that Xhufi is an open supporter of historical revisionism, (which mind you, is a red line for the academic community, since this conflicts with the principles and goal of the academic scholarship, which is to deliver information based on facts using scientific methods, whilst free from political propaganda), and the absense of third-party sources verifying pieces in his work isn't exactly convincing, Çerçok. His nationalist political career, his open support to the historical revisionism of the region, and the criticism of other scholars on his work's reliability regarding that region's history, should warrant source deprecation for the relevant topic areas of Wikipedia. Any information by him that remains unverified by any third-party sources should be removed from Wikipedia all-together. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I literally just gave you an example of his citation of a primary source which was cited in the exact same way by another historian, yet you keep repeating his work is unverified by third-party sources. I already explained that no academic work is verifiable in third-party sources in its entirety, otherwise it has nothing new (and if academics followed your logic, no new evidence, theory or conclusion would ever be accepted). If you want to be more specific, you can present a statement from his academic work which has been debunked from other academics, but I doubt you will find any. Çerçok (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It seems discussion got derailed. Let me clarify myself: I haven't asked for your example of a scholar verifying certain bits of Xhufi's information because, Çerçok, that's rather moot... Providing an example scholar verifying a piece of information by Xhufi, doesn't make *the entire work of his* to be automatically verified and consider the author reliable. We can't expect that Xhufi's reputation will be cleared by finding just a scholar who may be in agreement with Xhufi in a specific phrase. Right?

As it is also moot to ask from me to provide you an example of a scholar having disagreements of academic nature with Xhufi, because such disagreements are quite common in the academic community and that's different to the issues raised here at the DRN; Xhufi's reliability issues are different from what you are requesting from me, and they are explained thoroughly in the Alexikoua's report, which is based on the criticism to him by other scholars, and which (thus far) you have failed to refute or rebuke by providing strong sources to counter them. I haven't seen any sources by third party scholars debunking the criticism on Xhufi. I can't stress that enough.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:09, 16 October 2022 (UTC)